Under a DACA amnesty, American taxpayers would be left with a $26 billion bill. About one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid. Since DACA’s inception under Obama, more than 2,100 illegal aliens have been kicked off the program after it was revealed that they were either criminals or gang members. JOHN BINDER

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Schumer, favorite senator of Wall Street and K Street, takes over Senate Dems: When Senate Democrats chose their new leader, they selected the favorite senator of K Street and Wall Street, Chuck Schumer, an unparalleled expert at blending policymaking and fundraising. Schumer's new job, Senate Minority Leader, will mostly involve holding together the Democratic majority to filibuster GOP measures in the Senate, along with raising money to stave off further GOP Senate gains in 2018. Campaign finance data show Schumer as the favorite Senator, in either party, of lobbyists, bankers, and hedge funders. Schumer raised more from lobbyists than any U.S. Senator or senate candidate, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. (This excludes Marco Rubio's presidential fundraising.) Schumer's also the top Senate recipient of money ($1.97 million) this election from Wall Street. Schumer was number one among hedge funds and private equity.LIKE ALL LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMS, SEN. SCHUMER WANTS ALL MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS REGISTERED TO VOTE FOR AMNESTY TO LEGALIZE MEXICO'S LOOTING

Schumer: I work out with Sessions, but I won't vote for him: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled he would likely vote against Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for attorney general over his support for placing more constraints on immigration and his opposition to some elements of the most recent Voting Rights Act renewal. As one of the leaders of immigration reform, I go to the gym and we're on the bikes together with Sen. Sessions, we're very friendly, Schumer told reporters Wednesday. But he has been more anti-immigration than just about any other single lawmaker I can think of. It's hard for me to countenance an attorney general that is so anti-immigration, he added. In addition, Schumer said he feels similarly uneasy about Sessions' positions on the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act to many of us is sacred, and in the past Sen. Sessions has been no friend of [the law], and the attorney general is the protector of voting rights – so those are the questions I would have, Schumer said.

Schumer: I work out with Sessions, but I won't vote for him: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled he would likely vote against Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for attorney general over his support for placing more constraints on immigration and his opposition to some elements of the most recent Voting Rights Act renewal. As one of the leaders of immigration reform, I go to the gym and we're on the bikes together with Sen. Sessions, we're very friendly, Schumer told reporters Wednesday. But he has been more anti-immigration than just about any other single lawmaker I can think of. It's hard for me to countenance an attorney general that is so anti-immigration, he added. In addition, Schumer said he feels similarly uneasy about Sessions' positions on the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act to many of us is sacred, and in the past Sen. Sessions has been no friend of [the law], and the attorney general is the protector of voting rights – so those are the questions I would have, Schumer said.Schumer, favorite senator of Wall Street and K Street, takes over Senate Dems: When Senate Democrats chose their new leader, they selected the favorite senator of K Street and Wall Street, Chuck Schumer, an unparalleled expert at blending policymaking and fundraising. Schumer's new job, Senate Minority Leader, will mostly involve holding together the Democratic majority to filibuster GOP measures in the Senate, along with raising money to stave off further GOP Senate gains in 2018. Campaign finance data show Schumer as the favorite Senator, in either party, of lobbyists, bankers, and hedge funders. Schumer raised more from lobbyists than any U.S. Senator or senate candidate, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. (This excludes Marco Rubio's presidential fundraising.) Schumer's also the top Senate recipient of money ($1.97 million) this election from Wall Street. Schumer was number one among hedge funds and private equity.

ILLEGALS & WELFARE

70% OF ILLEGALS GET

WELFARE!

“According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”

CIS

Remittances to Mexico Rose25 Percent After Trump’s Election

Mexicans sent billions of dollars back to Mexico in November after President-elect Donald Trump’s election win.

Immigrant workers and illegal aliens rushed to take money out of the American economy and send it to their home countries, Reuters reports:

Mexicans abroad sent home nearly $2.4 billion in transfers in November, 24.7 percent higher than a year earlier, marking their fastest pace of expansion since March 2006, according to Mexican central bank data on Monday…

Trump’s surprise Nov. 8 election triumph also sent the Mexican currency to record lows in a sell-off fueled by his threats to scrap a trade deal between Mexico and the United States, and to levy punitive tariffs on Mexican-made goods…

Bank BBVA Bancomer has forecast that those Mexicans will have sent a record $27 billion in remittances into Mexico in 2016, an increase of more than $2 billion over 2015.

Not only do Americans give Mexico millions in foreign aid each year, Mexicans take in some $20 billion to $25 billion annually in remittances, according to the World Bank, much of it from the U.S. In total, foreigners took $54.2 billion in remittances out of the U.S. economy in 2014, with Mexico and China receiving the greatest sums from their citizens abroad.

American taxpayers are thus forced to pay for the welfare and schooling of millions of Mexican citizens and their children while enduring the costs of crime (gang activity, drug trafficking) and stagnant wages that unchecked immigration brings.

“The $ 20 billion being sent to immigrants’ grandmothers in Chiapas is forever eliminated from the American economy— unavailable for investment in American companies, the purchase of American products, or hiring American workers. That’s a cost of immigration that Americans are never told about,” conservative author Ann Coulter wrote in the influentialAdios Americaabout remittances.

“These billions of dollars being drained out of the U.S. economy every year would be bad enough if the money were coming exclusively from cheap-labor employers like Sheldon Adelson. But it’s worse than that,” Coulter continues. “It comes from American taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to support Americans who lose their jobs to low-wage immigrant laborers, taxpayers support the immigrants, too.”

“Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance… Seventy-three percent of legal Mexican immigrants send money back to their native land and 83 percent of illegal immigrants do,” she adds.

Remittances also fuel international criminal enterprises, according to one watchdog.

“Remittances can be used to launder proceeds from different types of criminal activities, including drug trafficking and human smuggling, through methods such as structuring,” a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released February 2016 stated. The high reporting threshold of $3,000 lets individuals send broken-up payments without raising questions.

Trump issued a memo in April 2016 telling Mexico he would tax remittances flowing out of the U.S. economy, or the Mexican government could issue a one-time payment of $5 billion to $10 billion for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers, and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States,” he wrote. “The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost.”

“We have the moral high ground here and all the leverage,” Trump said.

SHOCKING REPORT!

The report was apparently completed in May, leading some to suspect that the Obama administration did not want it released for fear that it would bolster Donald Trump’s call for a border wall.

This new report, whose full text the Center for Immigration Studies has now obtained, estimates that nearly half of illegal aliens slip through the southern border undetected.

MILLIONS of JOBS and BILLIONS in WELFARE and they commit most of the MURDERS

SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES: AMERICA FALLS TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

“However, it identified several states that have begun easing employment laws so that illegals can get a job.”

As Sessions Moves On, Cotton Steps Up

By Mark Krikorian

The Corner at National Review Online

I was among those begging Jeff Sessions not to take a position in the Trump cabinet. For sure, he will be among the finest Attorneys General in our nation's history, but I feared his departure from the Senate would leave a leadership vacuum, with no forceful, knowledgeable immigration skeptic to push back against the McCain/Schumer expansionists.

Fear not: Tom Cotton has reported for duty.

His op-ed in the New York Times today hits all the right themes, without rancor but also without the pussyfooting so common on this issue. He's been critiquing mass immigration for some time now, and without the "legal good/illegal bad" fallacy put forth by so many Republicans, whose calls for tough border enforcement are accompanied by support for huge increases in immigration.

Sen. Cotton's second sentence gets right to the point: "President-elect Trump now has a clear mandate not only to stop illegal immigration, but also to finally cut the generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrants that undermines American workers." In response to the complaints of business lobbyists that less immigration "will force employers to add benefits and improve workplace conditions to attract and keep workers already here", Cotton answers: "Exactly."

And this:

Higher wages, better benefits and more security for American workers are features, not bugs, of sound immigration reform. For too long, our immigration policy has skewed toward the interests of the wealthy and powerful: Employers get cheaper labor, and professionals get cheaper personal services like housekeeping. We now need an immigration policy that focuses less on the most powerful and more on everyone else.

Nor is he simply following the lead of some Republicans, like Sen. Rubio, who support the current high level of immigration, but want a reallocation away from cheap labor for fast-food restaurants toward cheap labor for tech firms. Instead Sen. Cotton prefaces his desire for "a reorientation toward ultra-high-skill immigrants" with a call for "a large reduction in legal immigration".

Sen. Cotton's emphasis on helping American (and previous immigrant) workers is important, not just politically and as policy, but morally as well. In the heated debate over immigration, as business lobbyists, libertarians, and leftists spew contempt for Americans as fat, lazy, and stupid, immigration skeptics sometimes respond in kind about immigrants.

But the problem we face is not the personal qualities of immigrants, but mass immigration itself. Of course, some immigrants are criminals and a few are terrorists. And reducing immigration is essential to shrinking the sea within which the criminals and terrorists swim, so law enforcement is better able to keep them out or, if they're already here, to find and expel them.

But most immigrants are just ordinary schmoes trying to make ends meet, like the rest of us. Even if every immigrant were legal, and every one of last year's million legal immigrants were a saint, mass immigration would still be bad policy. By leading with the effect on American workers – while not necessarily neglecting the concerns about crime, security, welfare, assimilation, etc. – Sen. Cotton is sending the important message that the problem is mass immigration as policy, not immigrants as people.

The op-ed concludes: "But in this election, Americans finally demanded an end to this unthinking immigration system. President-elect Trump and Congress should take that mandate and act on it promptly in the new year." It's good news that Sen. Cotton will be a leading voice in that process.

Arkansas Senator Proposes Immigration Reform That Helps the American People

By Cassie WilliamsVDare.com,

In his piece, he talks about wages and the law of supply and demand. With such vast numbers of workers, including an estimated 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. and the one million legal immigrants the U.S. accepts annually, already low wages are continuing to plummet. Real wages for American citizens with and without high school diplomas have been declining since the 1970s, which Senator Cotton says is exacerbated by mass immigration and a surplus of labor.

To fix this problem, Cotton says the country needs secure borders, and the U.S. must decide who and how many can cross that border, keeping the American citizens’ best interests in mind. Today, these best interests would entail a large reduction in legal immigration and a focus on “ultra-high-skill immigrants,” though tomorrow it could be something else. A major flaw in our immigration policy is that it doesn’t evolve to fit the needs of the American people; the last time Congress substantially reformed the immigration system was a half-century ago.

Cotton proposes a policy that gives priority to language skills, education, and work experience which would allow immigrants like doctors to work in rural areas and not push down the working-class wages. He goes on to note that some critics call this “nativism” or “xenophobia,” but it actually gives immigrants who recently arrived to the U.S. a better chance at assimilation, finding a stable job, and achieving the American Dream.

With Obama's Immigration Legacy, Trump Inherits 'Home Free Magnet'

By Nolan Rappaport

President Obama did not just put most of his enforcement resources into removing deportable immigrants in the priority categories. He also took affirmative steps to prevent deportable immigrants who were not in priority categories from being deported. This created what I call the “home free magnet.”

As of the end of Nov. 2016, the average wait time for a hearing was 678 days. President-elect Trump will have to reduce the population of undocumented immigrants to a manageable level with a very large legalization program before he will be able to address the home free magnet.

Also, so long as immigrants who want to come here illegally think that they will be safe from deportation once they have reached the interior, they will find a way to get past any wall that he builds to protect our border.

A "generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrants," the first-term Republican says, "undermines American workers"

By Brendan Gauthier

Salon.com

The president-elect, he wrote, “now has a clear mandate not only to stop illegal immigration, but also to finally cut the generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrants that undermines American workers.”

Effectively parroting Trump’s campaign appeals to the Rust Belt, Cotton — a staunch Republican — appeared to be diving head-first into economic populism with his case against legal immigration.

THE ONLY REASON OUR BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN AND

LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED IS TO KEEP WAGES

DEPRESSED!

Fix Immigration. It’s What Voters Want.

By Sen. Tom Cotton

The New York Times

These same industries contend that stricter immigration enforcement will further shrink the pool of workers and raise their wages. They argue that closing our borders to inexpensive foreign labor will force employers to add benefits and improve workplace conditions to attract and keep workers already here.

I have an answer to these charges: Exactly.

Higher wages, better benefits and more security for American

workers are features, not bugs, of sound immigration reform. For

too long, our immigration policy has skewed toward the interests of

the wealthy and powerful: Employers get cheaper labor, and

professionals get cheaper personal services like housekeeping. We

now need an immigration policy that focuses less on the most

powerful and more on everyone else.

Our country, like any country, needs borders and must decide who and how many can cross those borders. We must make this decision with the well-being of all our citizens in mind. Today, that means a large reduction in legal immigration and a reorientation toward ultra-high-skill immigrants.

This policy would resemble the immigration systems of Canada and Australia, countries with similar advanced economies. While our system gives priority to reuniting extended families and low-skilled labor, their systems prize nuclear-family reunification and attributes like language skills, education and work experience. A similar system here would allow in immigrants like doctors to work in rural areas while not pushing down working-class wages.

In some quarters, proposals like these invoke cries of “nativism” and “xenophobia.” But recent immigrants are the very Americans who have to compete with new immigrants for jobs. Far from being anti-immigrant, this proposal would give recent arrivals a better shot at higher wages, stable work and assimilation.

January 2, 2017

For sanctuary cities, business as usual in 2016

The Department of Homeland Security released its year-end immigration enforcement report, and the numbers show that sanctuary cities refused to hand over to the federal government more than 2,000 illegal aliens in their custody. Instead, the illegals were released back on to the streets.

Two thousand illegals doesn't sound like a large number – until you recall that the Obama administration promised to deport only illegal aliens who are "convicted criminals, national security risks or people who are ignoring recent orders of deportation." In short, sanctuary cities set free more than 2,000 aliens who represent the worst of the worst.

Led by Philadelphia and Cook County in Illinois, which refuse all cooperation with the federal government, sanctuaries are likely to be one of the thorniest issues confronting Donald Trump as president. He has vowed penalties for defying immigration laws.

Mr. Trump’s selection to be attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, has also expressed support for blocking some federal funds from sanctuary cities — and even suggested bringing criminal charges against them.

The Obama administration has also called for sanctuary cities and localities to cooperate, saying communities that refuse to turn over illegal immigrants wanted by federal agents are making the streets less safe and causing more hassle for immigration agents.

“Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in its 2016 review released Friday.

“Detainer” is the term ICE uses when it asks a local police or sheriff’s department to hold an illegal immigrant for pickup by federal agents. A declined detainer means the locals refused, and instead released the person onto the streets.

ICE has been making some progress. In fiscal year 2015, there were 395 jurisdictions that acted as sanctuaries, refusing to turn over a total of 8,546 illegal immigrants that were being sought by ICE agents. In 2016, the number of jurisdictions dropped to 279, and the total number of illegal immigrants shielded was down by more than three-quarters to 2,008. It’s not a straight 1-to-1 comparison, however, because ICE likely stopped asking in 2016 for detainers on some illegal immigrants in communities that have gained reputations for refusing to cooperate.

Of the 25 largest jurisdictions that offered sanctuary a few years ago, 21 of them have started to work with ICE in some capacity since Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson made a major push to establish better cooperation. Still, even those 21 municipalities don’t fully cooperate, officials acknowledged.

Some, such as Philadelphia and Cook County, home of Chicago, balk at most requests.

Asked over the summer, Philadelphia officials insisted that they attempt to cooperate on “violent criminals or suspected terrorists,” but they didn’t answer specific Justice Department allegations that the city refused cooperation. Cook County, meanwhile, didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

The number of sanctuary cities is augmented by universities who are refusing to cooperate with the federal government in handing over any illegal aliens. But authorities face the same difficulity in cutting off federal funds to schools as they do in denying funding for sanctuary cities: it is extremely difficult to separate funds used to care for illegals from general purpose funds. It is probable that the courts would take a dim view of denying money to cities and schools because of this difficulty.

But the effort must be made, if only to protect citizens whose own governments put in danger. Regardless of what Congress does about sanctuary cities, it appears that President Trump will challenge their defiance of federal law and attempt to bring them to heel in order to address the crisis at our borders.

MEXIFORNIA:

THE LA RAZA MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY AND LA RAZA DEM POLICITICIANS GEAR UP TO FORMALLY SURRENDER TO MEXICO.

“The election of Trump has led Californians to threaten to leave the union, and there are many Americans who are eager to see them leave. Their secession would end the flow of illegals from that state and the millions in federal grants they now receive.”

“However, it identified several states that have begun easing employment laws so that illegals can get a job.”

MEXIFORNIA: The Shattering of the American Dream

MILLIONS of JOBS and BILLIONS in WELFARE and they commit most of the MURDERS

SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES: AMERICA FALLS TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

The federal funds under threat could amount to more than 20 percent of a city budget, or less than 1 percent. Either way, cities could well end up hurting.

12:53 PM ET

People march towards Trump Tower during a protest organized by the New York Immigration Coalition against President-elect Donald Trump. (REUTERS/Darren Ornitz)

Love CityLab? Make sure you're signed up for our free e-mail newsletter.

Earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown of California captured the admiration of many a Trump adversary during a speech on climate change at the American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco. “If Trump turns off the satellites [collecting climate data], California will launch its own damn satellites!” he exclaimed to a cheering room.

This is, indeed, what the resistance sounds like. Local and state governments all over the country are gearing up for a bitter fight with the incoming administration over several points of policy, including climate change and immigration enforcement—the latter of which is especially pressing for cities in particular. Trump has promised to revoke federal funding for sanctuary cities within his first 100 days.A long list of major cities have since gone on record to say they won’t change their policies despite those threats—but if Trump could succeed in keeping every federal grant from reaching their coffers, it could constitute a devastating financial blow to metros that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

Luckily for the cities vested in these policies, that’s a key conjunction: if. Various legal obstacles stand in the Trump administration’s way. They could prove onerous enough to nix his attempts altogether, or water them down so much they become nothing more than wrist-slaps for the cities in question. CityLab consulted experts in constitutional law (and this post from the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability) to lay out exactly what hoops the administration might have to jump through in its quest to force cities into compliance with federal immigration enforcement programs, and how much money could eventually be at risk.

A statutory challenge

According to Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University of Law who has written previously about the subject, the first obstacle Trump faces doesn’t even have to do with constitutional law; it’s a question of simple statutes. For decades, Supreme Court precedent has maintained that any condition on a federal grant must be expressly written into the law in a “clear and unambiguous” fashion. Somin says there are likely very few federal grants expressly conditioned on compliance with deportation efforts—in fact, he can’t think of any at all. So Trump wouldn’t be able to simply withhold all federal grants from particular cities on his first day in office. He would need help from Congress in the form of entirely new grants, all written with the stipulationthat cities must comply with deportation efforts in order to receive funds. That could take much longer to accomplish than Trump has implied, although with Republican majorities in both houses, it’s certainly not out of the question.

Is the funding ‘germane’?

But here Trump would encounter yet another obstacle. Say the administration got Congress to pass a law that ties federal grants to local compliance with deportation efforts. The next question becomes, ‘Are all of those grants germane?’ That is, are the conditions for withholding relevant to what the funds are actually used for?

States and localities across the country receive federal grants for everything from education to housing to infrastructure to law enforcement. The narrowest interpretation of the ‘germane’ qualification means that only grants related to law enforcement or immigration would be at risk, since those are the only ones directly relevant to immigration enforcement. That would likely represent a manageable loss for most large cities—justa small part of their overall operating budgets. But according to William Baude, a professor of law at the University of Chicago who spoke with Daniel Hertz at the CBTA about this issue, courts could also conceivably take a much wider view, anddecide that all grants that benefit undocumented immigrants are fair game. That would includebasically all grants, because city services and programs—from infrastructure to education to parks—allbenefit undocumented people in one way or another. Losing all those grants would be a much bigger monetaryhit —nearly 14 percent of Chicago’stotal operating budget, according to Hertz.

Are the conditions coercive?

According to Supreme Court precedent from last year’s Affordable Care Act ruling, the federal government cannot place conditions on funding so severe that they constitute a “gun to the head” of the locality. In the Obamacare ruling, that determination came from the administration's attempt to withhold Medicaid funding from those states that refused to expand the program. Withholding all Medicaid funding (which would substantially affect the state’s budget and healthcare access for millions of people) was deemed to be “unconstitutionally coercive.”

If the Trump administration managed to take away all federal grants from sanctuarycities, this movecould also be deemed too coercive. But according to Somin, ”what exactly qualifies as a ‘gun to the head’ remains unclear.” In the case of big cities, all federal funding might add up to only around five percent of the total budget, which is presumably less financial pressure than the ACA was exerting on states—but that doesn’t mean that the loss would be manageable.

How much could this hurt a city?

It’s hard to say whether Trump’s policies could hit a city hard enough to make sanctuary city policies untenable there. That depends on whether the city could fill some of the gaps created by the loss in funding with its own revenues, and how much political will it has to continue its refusal to participate in deportation efforts. It also depends on how much money Trump could ultimately take away.

The chart below shows what it would look like for five different major sanctuary cities to lose all of their federal grant funding, as a percentage of their total operating budget.

City

Total Federal Grants

Total budget

Percentage of city budget

Los Angeles

$500 million

$8 billion

6.25%

San Francisco

$416 million

$8 billion

5.20%

Washington, D.C.

$3 billion

$10.2 billion

29.40%

New York

$8.5 billion

$80.5 billion

10.50%

Chicago

$1.33 billion

$9.81 billion

13.50%

*Numbers are approximate from FY ‘15 and FY ‘16, obtained from city officials in every city except Chicago, where we used CBTA numbers.

Some of the above percentages are huge chunks of the city budget, particularly in Washington, D.C., and Chicago. In D.C., federal grants make up more than 20 percent of the total budget, which would likely make withheld funds difficult for the city to absorb—and would probably be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court precedent. But even in cities like L.A. and San Francisco, where the effect looks comparatively small, losing this money could still be damaging.

“L.A. has an $8 billion budget, but some of these [federal grants] go to our highest-need areas,” says Connie Llanos, the press secretary for Mayor Eric Garcetti. “It’s not really about something being about X percentage of the total budget. If you remove one of these pots of funding, there’s nowhere for the city to backfill it from because it’s not something we fund.”

Given these huge numbers and the logistical complications, it seems unlikely (though certainly not impossible) that Trump would be able to stop every flow of federal funds. So with help from Philip Wolgin at the Center for American Progress, CityLab outlined another tactic Trump could take: Below, we’ve charted five specific federal grants going to the same cities we looked at above. These grants were chosen, Wolgin explains, becausecongressional Republicans have already targeted them in legislative attempts to defund sanctuary cities in 2015 and 2016. As such, they seem like a logical place for the new administration to begin.

$1,870,503

$3,125,000.00

$3,050,815.00 (County funds)

$5,692,150.00

$49,744,488.00

$63,482,956.00

San Francisco

$522,943

$0

$169,841.00

$474,453.00

$16,485,875.00

$17,653,112.00

Washington, D.C.

$1,476,400

$0

$0

$350,000

$13,778,139.00

$15,604,539.00

New York

$4,298,245

$0

$11,619,881.00

$2,100,000.00

$151,460,389.00

$169,478,515.00

Chicago

$2,333,428

$3,224,990.00

$1,436,985.00 (County funds)

$700,000.00

$72,220,468.00

$79,915,871.00

All of the above grants constitute less than 1 percent of each city’s total budget. As Wolgin told CityLab via email, these funding streams shouldn’t be taken as a complete list of those that could be at risk—just a starting place, given that they’ve been part of the debate already. “I also do not mean to concede in any way that the administration or Congress legally could cut any of these funding streams—there may be constraints on what conditions can be placed on various funding streams (which is a big open question),” Wolgin adds.

Most of the cities we contacted said they couldn’t speculate about what losing these grants might do to the budget. But in L.A., Llanos mentioned that losing several grants—in particular, community development block grants, which help create jobs in high-need areas—would likely disproportionately affect low-income residents.

The city officials I spoke withalso usually reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining their policies despite the threat of funding cuts. “[The Mayor] will stand in opposition to policies that threaten our values,” says Susana Castillo, deputy press secretary for Mayor Muriel Bowser in D.C., in an email statement.

It remains to be seen how firmly Bowser (or any other mayor) will truly be able to stand her ground—but given the myriad legal obstacles in Trump’s path, the administration’spromises to cut funding don’t look quite so surefire either.

CAUTION!

GRAPHIC IMAGES of America coming under Mex Occupation

The NARCOMEX drug cartels now operate in all major American cities and haul back to NARCOMEX between $40 top $60 BILLION from sales of HEROIN!

doubled, from 12 percent to 20 percent."

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS surrenders

A municipality just outside Chicago, Illinois has now pledged itself to be a home for illegal aliens who want to be shielded from federal immigration law, officially claiming the mantle as a sanctuary city.

HEROIN!

MEXICO INVADES, LOOTS AND EXPANDS ITS HEROIN MARKETS IN AMERICA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS

JUDICIAL WATCH:

“The greatest criminal threat to the daily lives of American citizens are the Mexican drug cartels.”

Much more here:

“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States.Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.”

MEXIFORNIA:

THE LA RAZA MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY AND LA RAZA DEM POLICITICIANS GEAR UP TO FORMALLY SURRENDER TO MEXICO.

“The election of Trump has led Californians to threaten to leave the union, and there are many Americans who are eager to see them leave. Their secession would end the flow of illegals from that state and the millions in federal grants they now receive.”

TRUMP FOLDS TO LA RAZA MEX FASCIST MOVEMENT

Says the “WALL” will now be only “NO TRESSPASSING” signs posted every hundred miles!

“He's showing more empathy for illegal aliens than he is for American citizens. Shouldn't it be the concerns of Americans he should be considering first, before the feelings of illegals? These people are taking taxpayer money and American jobs, some committing crimes, and many are not assimilating and speaking English, and Trump wants them to stay?”

ATTORNEY GENERAL IN LA RAZA-OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA … a state where half the murders are by mexican gangs!

It didn’t stop Becerra, a prominent Latino rights advocate who has served in Congress since 1993, from pushing for the dealer’s release at the request of his father, Horacio. The elder Vignali, a rich Los Angeles businessman, contributed thousands of dollars to Becerra’s various campaigns and a favor was in order.

RAPE, MURDER, SCALPING… THE MEXICANS HAVE ARRIVED!

Sheriff: MS-13 Gang Brings Machetes, Rape, Scalping to Texas

BY BOB PRICE

Members of the hyper-violent MS-13 transnational criminal gang are bringing severe tactics like machete-hacking murders, rape, and scalping to Texas according to the Texas Sheriff’s Association.

FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE:

MEXICO’S STAGGERING LOOTING IN OUR OPEN BORDERS….

ARIZONA…. MEXICAN WORLD CAPITAL FOR LA RAZA CAR THEFT

Here did those vehicles go? Who stole them? Take a guess. Arizona is the temporary home of 500,000 illegal aliens. They cost Arizona taxpayers over $1 billion annually in services for schools, medical care, welfare anchor babies, loss of tax base and prisons. Illegals use those vehicles for smuggling more people and drugs from around the world into our country. When the vehicles are recovered, they are smashed-up wrecks in the desert. If not found, they have new owners south of the border as thieves drive the cars through the desert and into Mexico as easily as you drive your kids to soccer practice. THAT’S how porous our borders are!

WARNING!

VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES OF AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION:

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S SURRENDER OF OUR BORDERS TO LA RAZA, AND THE MEX DRUG CARTELS.

Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.